California Voters Don't Want Dire Cuts; They Want Leaders to Get It Right

Devastating cuts to schools and colleges. Aid to people with disabilities slashed. Thousands of firefighters and police officers cut loose. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened these dire consequences if the voters turned their backs on his special-election ballot measures. With the decisive defeat of Propositions 1A through 1E on Tuesday, he appears intent on making good on his promises.

Not so fast. Today should be about starting over, not teaching the voters a lesson. Before the governor and the Legislature take a meat ax to the budget, they should take a breath, accept responsibility for the voters' judgment and try to get it right this time.

Give the voters credit. Although the governor and his allies outspent opponents about 10 to 1, California's electorate made a reasonable judgment that the budget package was the wrong prescription for the state's fiscal ills. Years of fiscal chaos and repeated broken pledges to balance the books left the voters wary of a new set of election promises.

It was clear the ballot measures would not solve California's chronic budget woes -- we would be facing a $15 billion deficit even if the propositions had passed. And it didn't help that the budget deal gave billions in tax breaks to big corporations while working families were stuck with a bundle of regressive taxes and cuts to education and other critical services.

There will be ample debate about why voters from across the political spectrum rejected Sacramento's proposed budget fix, but there is no credible evidence that they wanted to see vital investments and programs hit with $21 billion worth of Draconian cuts. Recent polls show that voters oppose cuts in law enforcement, public schools, colleges, and health care for low-income families and the disabled by more than 2-to-1.

If there is a disconnect between what the voters want and what they'll pay for -- as some claim -- it's in no small part because over the past six years, they've been fed a cynical diet of budget borrowing and accounting maneuvers that have skirted any meaningful discussion of the choices confronting the state.

So what are the governor and the Legislature to do? How Sacramento reacts in the coming days will determine whether the trust of Californians in their state's leadership can be restored and whether the state can get on the road to recovery. Here are some principles to light the path.

• Protect the investments most important to the voters and the state's future. There's no way the budget can be balanced with cuts alone, and there's no doubt we can find fair ways to bring in revenue. Increase tax compliance. Wipe out senseless corporate tax loopholes, including the $2.5 billion in annual giveaways that were part of the budget deal. Update the tax code. If AIG was too important to fail, then certainly our public schools can be spared.

• Try a little fairness. Resolutions to crises require shared sacrifice, but almost all the recent tax burdens and cuts have fallen on working families and the most vulnerable. Ask the oil companies that got a free pass in the latest budget deal to kick in some of their record profits before asking the guy at the Costco checkout stand who's already struggling to make ends meet to take another hit.

• Show the voters that Sacramento is serious about making state government run more efficiently. Efficiencies alone won't close the budget gap, but a real effort to make state government more accountable will yield long-term results. Lay out significant reforms to the prison system. Set productivity goals. Eliminate some of the commissions that offer full-time pay for part-time work.

• Most of all, craft a plan that shows the people of this state how we're eventually going to climb out of this mess. Level with them about the magnitude of the challenge facing us, but don't threaten their communities, schools and families with avoidable harm. And go back to the ballot box only when there are real reforms - such as replacing the two-thirds vote to adopt a budget with a simple majority vote - to put before the voters.

It's been too long since a governor and legislative leaders have spoken directly, plainly and honestly about the level of investments we need for California's future, the fairest way to pay for those investments and the real reforms required to right the fiscal ship. As of Tuesday, the case still had not been made. It's time to get back to work.

Phil Angelides served as California state treasurer from 1999-2007 and was the Democratic nominee for governor in 2006.

This piece was originally published in The Sacramento Bee.

 

Follow Phil Angelides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ApolloAlliance

Comments

[2contango]

Re: "Show the voters that Sacramento is serious about making state government run more efficiently."

Unfortunately, public employee unions put the majority of legislators in office. The unions won't let their legislators do anything that cuts the rolls of union members or jeopardizes salary increases. There are plenty of Democrats who wish their representatives weren't so tied to the public employee unions. There's nothing wrong with unions looking out for their members. That's what they do. But as long as the majority is beholden to special interests, the state will never voluntarily balance the budget. Legislators are simply unable to balance the budget through greater efficiency. Instead, the only solution they can accept is tax increases. And with the economy in California tanking, they'll have an awfully hard time squeezing any more juice from the withering lemon.

The only realistic solution -- the one that even some legislators are willing to embrace -- is bankruptcy. It's the only way to pare back expenses without angering the interest groups that put our legislators in office. It will be disruptive, but it's the only practical option left.

[barbarossa89]

Time to get realistic. When faced with budget problems, there are three possibilities to stay afloat:

Increase tax revenue. In this case, closing loopholes will not be enough. The amount necessary is just too large. There would have to be massive increases, at least in the short term, until California can get itself out of this whole dug by REPUBLICAN Arnold Schwarzenegger. However, the idea of increasing taxes was rejected by the people of California.

Increase deficits. This is not a long-term solution, and it is not really an option with California, which is already deep in debt. They can't really afford it. And the amount would just be too great to bear.

The last option, the one hated by all: Cut your budget. It will hurt. People will not like it. They are used to having the state help them with lots of things. But it must be done. Maybe later, when the economy picks up, some things can be put back in place. But spending will have to be cut drastically. The governator is right in his dire predictions. But the people of California will just have to live with the consequences. I know it sounds harsh and it does hurt, but maybe when their programs start getting cut, they will know what it feels like to live in a place where tax increases are rejected. They have this coming.

[booboo111]

Obama is smart enough to know that Ca. is going to be hit with a major earthquake soon and break off into the ocean. It's not a good investment.

[AGarcia]

I wholeheartedly agree. This was a rebuke of poorly written propositions, not just because they were taxes. We don't want to cut services. Many republicans here will say otherwise but that's just spin. I read the proposals too and I voted against all of them.

[burmajoe1]

I voted down all except the proposition to freeze pay raises to pols when the state of California is in a budget deficit. The reason is as follows : i am sick and tired of gimmicks by our state lawmakers who lack the testicular fortitude to make the hard choices when it comes to balancing the budget, making cuts, and standing up to the employee unions of Ca, (prison guards, teachers ,state employees).

[lwaxanatroi]

I was living in Oklahoma when a Prop 13-like measure was on the ballot. Ads against it screamed, "Hey, this is what they do in California! You don't want to be like California, do you?" The measure was soundly defeated. So the Oklahomans who stayed home might be a little smarter than the ones who trekked to the Golden State during the Dust Bowl years...

[wisecrack]

California has a wealth of oil on its coastline. Time to face the music.

[MikeyMike]

Isn't that oil in federal waters? That would help the state how? The inevitable oil spills?

[jmpurser]

Sure, that will let them avoid reality for a little while longer. Maybe.

[shockmagog]

Get your rich Republican friends to accede to the oil companies drilling in front of their beachfront homes and its a done deal.

[litlbznsmn]

What we California voters truly want is for the savings to start in Sacramento, by eliminating the states hugley bloated bureaucracy and lifetime welfare for ex state lawmakers.Then eliminate the stranglehold on the state by certain unions such as the prison employees union which blocks all real prison reform in the state. Instead of slashing funding for education pare back the huge schools bureaucracy as well. Make some truly meaningful cuts in wasteful spending and we'll support higher taxes etc. Anything less is simply going to kill whats left of many of the states businesses and place us in an even worse situation in the very near future.

[Jepps11]

I'm sorry but I have ZERO faith in 99% of our elected officials. They may have plans to change things for the better and support the common man. But as it happens over and over again, once in a position of power the influences of big $$$ are too difficult to ignore. Once elected, the priority of being re-elected exceeds any other objective. And too often the blinds of ideology narrow the view. Let's face it, there is a worthy debate between cutting spending and raising taxes but if we have legislators who won't make difficult decisions in fear of biting the hand status quo will rule. And without fear of dissapointing the electorate, as most are disinterested, the $$ wins out dare I say, everytime.
Those who fight for education, are they really fighting for the benefit of the population or are they fighting for the influences that funded their campaign? Of course education for the masses is a good thing but if advocated wrongheartedly it leads to excess. I really don't know anymore...
We have to find a way to get the big $$ influence out of the process and give people talented enough to actually run the state the opportunity to do so in the best interest of ALL

[walk0nwalls]

I didn't vote on it because I really believe the republicans should just shove their 'no new taxes ' pledge right up their ___. I'd like to see that done.

[econ1]

CA is at or near the top in taxes. But government grows every year, pay and pensions are above private industry and grow every year, criteria for receiving benefits are among the most liberal (and the benefits are among the highest), the state pays for children no matter how many you have....it has just gotten to be too much.

There are a few simple savings:

Eliminate 90% of the department of taxation by tying the state income tax to the federal one. A one page income tax form (stapled to your federal form) that simply multiplied your federal income tax by a factor (5%...whatever would result in the same receipts) would raise the same amount of money. Simpler for government , simpler for citizens. You would need far fewer people to run that and sales tax etc. . Savings .... about $400m.

Probably not politically correct, but if we didn't print everything in 10 languages it could save another $200-300 m a year. Love the diversity of CA but citizens should all be able to speak English. No other country does this.

[Raul Garcia]

Near the top in taxes? Get your facts straight. Try 15th.

[econ1]

15th of 50 states = near the top

[econ1]

15th of 50 = near the top

[Raul Garcia]

California near the top in taxes? Try 15th.

[Openeyes]

You are completely wrong.

There is no "Department of Taxation" there is the Board of Equalization which administers a variety of taxes like sales, use, excise, fuel, etc. (which aren't going away). There is the Franchise Tax Board which administers income taxes for individuals and business, meaning if you file fed returns with schedules (which businesses and a lot of individuals do) you need to file those with the state also - the state forms already follow closely or use actual fed forms anyway.

State gov't has been shrinking for the last 3 years in terms of total employees, and this years budget was $10 Billion LESS than last year. California state employees to citizen ratio is the lowest in the nation, meaning we have the most efficient ratio of fewest state employees serving the most citizens. Benefits do not grow every year, health benefits to state employees have increased in cost to those employees every year for at least the last 5 years, benefits to new state employees have similarly been reduced every year for several years.

Pay and pensions are significantly LESS than private industry, especially for managers and other professionals like engineers, attorneys, physicians, nurses, etc. Many of these pay categories, like nurses for example, top out at what private industry STARTS these people at.

Do you even live in California?

[econ1]

Okay, Franchise Tax Board.

And, yes, in 2001-2 the budget did go down. Still it is up from $78m in 2000 to over $100m now. The state continues to refuse to put the budget online so it is a bit tedious to compare.

Fiscal Year General Fund Budgeted General Fund Actual Change (%)
2000-2001 $78,815,938,057 $78,052,900,000
2001-2002 $78,763,416,398 $76,751,700,000 (2)%
2002-2003 $76,721,738,911 $77,482,100,000 1%
2003-2004 $71,136,964,450 $78,345,200,000 1%
2004-2005 $78,681,001,033 $79,804,000,000 2%
2005-2006 $90,025,959,859 $91,591,500,000 15%
2006-2007 $101,260,997,500 $101,413,000,000 11%
2007-2008 $102,258,193,000

So partly wrong.

[econ1]

okay The Franchise Tax Board.

and in 2001-2002 the budget did go down. Still up from roughly $80m to over $100m since 2000.

so partly wrong

[artgurrl]

Phil, Why on earth didn't you run on those points against Arnie during the last election in 2006?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

He, sorta, did.

Lost by 17 points.

[shockmagog]

'And go back to the ballot box only when there are real reforms - such as replacing the two-thirds vote to adopt a budget with a simple majority vote - to put before the voters.'

Absolutely. I am so tired of being held hostage here in California by the ghost of Howard Jarvis. Ever since proposition 13 came along in the 70's, California's quality of life has been in decline.

And why the obvious silence on the legalization of Marijuana? Let's get with it!

[zipowitz]

Go look at the facts, tax revenue has increased and outpaced population growth. Prop 13 is NOT the problem, it's just the scapegoat that the legislature is looking for. Again, not a revenue issue, it's a spending issue. Prop 13 has actually stabilized the tax base and is much less volatile compared to business taxes etc..

[logan9]

Please contact the governor and express your disappointment and outright anger at his draconian cuts. This would devastate my family whom is uninsurable in the private marketplace due to asthma and Ehlers Danlos. And further, my wife has almost a half million in Medical School debt and is in her final year! These benefits are crucial to our quality of life.

Perhaps the time is NOW for legalizing, taxing, and regulating marijuana. It would, in the very least, allow for the poor and others to continue receiving these much-needed benefits.

http://govnews.ca.gov/govmail/webmail.php

[NorCalNative]

logan9, thanks for the link.

I e-mailed and telephoned the Guv's office. The State's 2/3 majority to pass a budget has got to go!

[AchievePeace]

I believe the Governor promised to cut the waste and fraud in the state government when he ran for office. He has done neither. That failure coupled with the fact that state workers in California sure have it a lot better financially than those of us working in the private sector contributes significantly to our financial problems. Time to cut salaries, benefits,pensions, pork projects, unjustified disaability payments and agency overspending . If Califonria were a corporation in this State, they would have gotten a lot leaner a long time ago. I know the unions wield a lot of power, but couldn't help but notice that the car maufacturer unions certainly caved when the "bankruptcy" word was introduced. Time for some heavy handed tactics here.

[twofish]

He didn't do it because he didn't find any. It was either campaign BS, or once in office, he had other reasons to let it slide. Like people from his party saying, hey, don't cut our big state contracts!

I think it's funny that people bitch about state employee pensions. As with the unions, those were established in lieu of more pay along the way. Now that the time has come to pay out, people want to snatch them back. The uber-rich want to drain every pot of money in our society, so they can watch us fight over the crumbs. Get your popcorn and find a seat, it promises to be bloody in the California arena today.